The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: John M. on 9 Dec 2008 12:45 On Dec 9, 6:20 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > ClimateAudit seems a bit more credible to me than RealClimate for > some reason. There is really only one place for the sceptical to go: http://climatedebatedaily.com/ has both sides of the debate. So BW had better stick with ClimateAudit to avoid seeing anything that disagrees with him.
From: Bill Ward on 9 Dec 2008 12:53 On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:18:19 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In <pan.2008.12.04.08.24.48.144247(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward > wrote: >>On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:30:18 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >>> In <pan.2008.12.01.00.23.21.593448(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, B. Ward >>> said: >>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:02:11 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>> <And I snip most previously quoted material to edit for space> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I should have said here is that the radiation it does emit has >>>>>>> the same intensity as a blackbody radiator would emit at that >>>>>>> temperature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This follows from the second law of thermodydnamics - if it wasn't >>>>>>> so a blob of CO2 surrounded by a blackbody would end up at a >>>>>>> temperature other than that of the blackbody. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <SNIP response to snipped point> >>>>>> >>>>>>Isn't the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum a band, not a BB >>>>>>distribution? In part of your previous post (which you snipped) you >>>>>>linked to this: >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif >>>>>> >>>>>>It doesn't look like a BB to me. Are you having trouble keeping your >>>>>>stories straight again? >>>>> >>>>> He is confusing me, doesn't the AGW consensus claim that AGW >>>>> has >>>>> caused the stratosphere to cool to a lower than normal temperature? >>>>> >>>>>>The "lump" would need to absorb and emit just enough to stay in >>>>>>thermal equilibrium. Why would the general spectrum suddenly change? >>>>>>What you are saying doesn't make sense to me. Please explain. >>>>> >>>>> Haven't all measurements shown that the stratosphere has >>>>> cooled, >>>>> and that added CO2 concentration [AGW] caused it? >>>>> >>>>>>>> Outside the 15u band? ÃÂ How much difference is there between >>>>>>>> the energy in the spectra at the two temperatures? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body >>>>>>> >>>>>>> work it out for yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>>Let me rephrase: I don't think there's a significant difference. >>>>>>Show why you think there is. Start by showing why you think it's a >>>>>>BB distribution. >>>>> >>>>> That page contains the following sentence; >>>>> >>>>> "This is the black body temperature as measured from space, while the >>>>> surface temperature is higher due to the greenhouse effect." >>>>> >>>>> I claim, and strongly suggest that thinking scientists must >>>>> understand >>>>> that statement does not represent the true physics, because it >>>>> ignores the probability that an N2 and O2 (78 + 20) atmosphere would >>>>> be hotter than at present without GreenHouse Gases. >>>>> >>>>> Unless somebody can explain how N2 and O2 could cool after >>>>> being >>>>> warmed by solar energy and convection from the surface. >>>> >>>>I suspect the equatorial to polar temperature gradient would invoke >>>>convection bands that would tend to equalize the temperatures by >>>>conduction to the surface. The nighttime surface would be colder then >>>>the adjacent atmosphere, the daytime would be hotter and, "on the >>>>average", it looks to me like the (lower) atmosphere still might be >>>>warmer than the surface, because of the day/night asymmetry in >>>>convection. >>> >>> That does indeed occur. >>> >>>>I think adding GHG's with no latent heat would overall cool the >>>>atmosphere and warm the surface via the nighttime IR blanket effect. >>> >>> That is indeed true. >>> >>>> But I also think that on Earth, latent heat transport by water >>>>overwhelms any IR warming by CO2 >>> >>>>If someone has a lucid explanation showing otherwise, I'd like to see >>>>it. >>> >>> Could well be greater, without negating significance of warming of >>> surface and lower levels of the atmosphere by CO2. Also consider that >>> significant heat transport by atmospheric movement is not latent heat. >> >>But transport of water vapor is, by definition. When the WV condenses, >>the latent heat has been transfered from wherever it evaporated. >> >>If there is a significant cooling contribution from water vapor, it >>wouldn't take much negative temperature feedback in the water cycle to >>compensate for the hypothetical ~1.5W/m^2 "forcing", from anthropogenic >>CO2. > > Except that moving heat around the world does not cool it. > > Or are you talking about the latent portion of heat convected upwards? Both latent and sensible. > >>> Just as an example of an extreme - cyclones of baroclinic nature (the >>> "usual extratropical cyclone") where water vapor presence is low. Such >>> things do occue in central and northern Canada in mid and late winter, >>> when water vapor presence is low enough to not account for much heat >>> movement. Such things do occur in desert areas. >> >>"Dust devils"? > > Dust devils are not baroclinic - those are convective, generally from > surface to mere hundreds of meters above. Baroclinic cyclones are the big > ones showing up on weather maps. OK, thanks. I didn't really know what baroclinic meant. Interesting stuff. >>> They even occur on Mars without a cloud anywhere. >>> >>> I remember a demonstration by a Sunday School teacher showing >>> baroclinic cyclones and baroclinmic events in general forming without >>> latent heat - in a big pot of water on a record player turntable, with >>> red food dye dropped in over the circumference, and blue dye dropped >>> in at the center - and then heat the circumference with a propane >>> torch. Baroclinic events result in global or regional convection and >>> heat transport across latitudes through the otherwise-barrier of local >>> lapse rate being short of allowing local vertical convection. >> >>That's some Sunday school. I'm envious. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Ward on 9 Dec 2008 13:10 On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:34:17 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: > On Dec 8, 11:19 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:22:33 -0800, John M. wrote: >> > On Dec 8, 11:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:32:30 -0800, John M. wrote: >> >> > On Dec 8, 10:21 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> What would drive horizontal advection if not density differences >> >> >> and resulting vertical convection? >> >> >> > Coriolis. >> >> >> I believe that just changes the apparent direction of an already >> >> existing horizontal movement. >> >> > Only if the observer is not part of the rotating system. For the >> > Earth's surface, the atmosphere can be regarded as an observer who is >> > in the system. It "sees " i.e experiences a real force, just as child >> > on a merry-go-round feels a real, outward, centrifugal force opposite >> > in direction to that noted by someone watching the rotation happen. >> >> >> Nice try, though. >> >> > Now you need to rethink this comment, don't you? Or is it still too >> > much for you to admit to making mistakes? >> >> Not my problem. You're projecting again: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force >> >> "The surface of the Earth is a rotating reference frame. To solve >> classical mechanics problems exactly in an Earth-bound reference frame, >> two fictitious forces must be introduced, the Coriolis force and the >> centrifugal force (described below)." >> >> Fictitious force == "Not real". Are you now going to claim wiki is >> wrong on something so simple and clear cut? Either way, the initial >> horizontal movement can't occur without some sort of convection driven >> force, so you're still lost in the woods > > Yes. Your interpretation of Wiki is hopelessly wrong in this case. The > "fictitious forces" are essential if you want to pretend that the Earth is > a non-rotating reference frame for ease of calculation - they are a direct > consequence of conservation of angular momentum. If you are going around a > tight corner it is those "fictitious forces" that you feel. > > You can if you wish do the entire calculation in a true inertial frame and > then the "fictitious forces" vanish but the mathematics becomes a more > complex since you are moving with the surface of the Earth even when you > think you are standing still. > > The pseudo-forces provide a way to handle dynamics in a rotating frame of > reference more easily. They can be derived from consideration of > conservation of angular momentum. > > You can also do the same calculations in the rotating frame of reference > and see the fictitious forces appear as a result of the coordinate > transformation and its dervivatives. People who worked on early radar in > the hut with the rotating antenna had plenty of stories of working in a > local frame of refernence where these "fictitious forces" were > significant. > > The simplest example that is accessible to common sense reasoning is in > long range gunnery and gunnery tables have been notoriously wrong in > doubling the Coriolis error in the Southern hemisphere as recently as the > Falklands war. It is left as an excercise to the reader to figure out why > it makes a difference. That's a pointless frame of reference issue irrelevant to the original question: "What would drive horizontal advection if not density differences and resulting vertical convection?" Want to try answering what I actually asked?
From: kT on 9 Dec 2008 13:13 John M. wrote: > both sides of the debate. There is no 'debate' about climate change you idiot.
From: bill.sloman on 9 Dec 2008 13:27
On 9 dec, 01:13, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:12:29 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > On 8 dec, 01:44, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> >On 7 dec, 22:56, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> >> Q <q...(a)universe.com> wrote: > >> >> >Whata Fool wrote: > >> >> >> I would like to agree with GISS, but every error and > >> >> >> other embarrassment causes a loss of confidence. > > >> >> >There is no error in GISS, the only error is in the brains of those > >> >> >who deny anthropogenic global warming. AGW is real, get used to it.. > > >> >> >Q > > >> >> Oh, it sure is, 20 degrees below normal, that is real > >> >> "warming". > > >> >As "Bill Ward" keeps reminding us, weather is chaotic, and your twenty > >> >degrees below normal is just a random excursion from the rising trend - > >> >0.8C over a hundred years hasn't been all that noticeable. > > >> And that should make me feel warm all over? > > > Obviously not, but it ought to discourage you from coupling you > > understandable unhappiness with the weather to your misguided scepticism > > about anthropogenic global warming. > > Skepticism can never be "misguided". That's reserved for those who > believe things they can't explain. > > >> With the record high here for this date being 70 F, and the > >> record low here for this date being -6 F, that -.8 degrees C really > >> makes a big difference. > > >> The only result is my heating bill for the day being about > >> double the usual amount for this date. > > >> I can't afford Global Warming. > > > None of us can - though it is the next generation who will see the real > > costs - but denying that it is happening won't make it go away, and > > helps delay the work that is necessary to slow it down to a sustainable > > level. > > Believing in things you don't understand is the province of religion, not > science. Since you clearly don't understand the subject you are indulging in proslytising. I don't understand a lot more, but I do understand enough to appreciate when I'm out of my depth, which means that I can legitimately claim to be defending the science involved. > When you consider skeptics heretics instead of potential > converts, you've moved on past modern religion to culthood. I'm sure that You and Whata Fool could learn enough about the subject to get a proper appreciation of what was going on if you hadn't managed to acquire a significant number of false ideas that I've failed to shake loose. I'm sure that you are still potential educatable, but I'm obviously not good enough at education to get you over the first - big - hurdle, which is to entertain the idea that your current understanding is inadequate. Trained scientists spend a lot of their time doing just that. Every now and then it pays off. The religious approach is rather different. Incidentally, if you want to see something of the nuts and bolts of a computer model of the atmosphere - the kind you consider futile because "chaotic systems are unpredictable" even though we do seem to be able to predict the positions so the planets accurately enough for all practical purposes - you could take a look at http://www.pnas.org/content/105/46/17614.abstract Downloading the full text costs money - I got it by another route. The text mentions that the individual cells are big - of the order of 100 to 200km per side for climate simulations, and goes on to explain how the authors contribution is to allow the cell to switch between three states - a dry regime with "weak or no cumulus friction", favoured for dry environments regardless of shear - an upright convection regime with stronger cumulus friction, faovured for moist, weakly sheared environments - a squall line regime with intense convective momentum transfer either upscale or downscale depending on the shear, favoured for moist sheared enviroments It is put forward as a computationally cheaper variant on mixing entrainment models of convective momentum transfer which require computationally expensvie pressure calculations, but have shown some success in modelling the El Nino southern oscillation and the Hadley circulation -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |